Re: DIS: Numbers and dependent actions
El 25/02/2020 a las 16:42, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion escribió: On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 10:39, sukil via agora-discussion wrote: (Slightly deviating from the topic, but it appears first on r1728): any reason why point 3 of this rule says "an integer multiple of 0.1 with a minimum of 1"? Maybe I'm being super pedantic here, but integers don't have anything after the decimal point, so why not just use number or real number? It's "integer multiple" to avoid a power of "pi times 0.1". Ah I see, I have misinterpreted that rule to mean that the whole result must be an integer, as opposed to that the multiple should be an integer.
Re: DIS: Numbers and dependent actions
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 10:39, sukil via agora-discussion wrote: > (Slightly deviating from the topic, but it appears first on r1728): any > reason why point 3 of this rule says "an integer multiple of 0.1 with a > minimum of 1"? Maybe I'm being super pedantic here, but integers don't > have anything after the decimal point, so why not just use number or > real number? It's "integer multiple" to avoid a power of "pi times 0.1".
Re: DIS: Numbers and dependent actions
(Slightly deviating from the topic, but it appears first on r1728): any reason why point 3 of this rule says "an integer multiple of 0.1 with a minimum of 1"? Maybe I'm being super pedantic here, but integers don't have anything after the decimal point, so why not just use number or real number?
Re: DIS: Numbers and dependent actions
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:51 PM Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: > > "Without objection" and "without objections" both sound okay to me. I > > prefer the first, but I don't know why. Maybe I'm just used to it. > > The second makes it sound like there need to be objection/s/, plural, to > block the relevant action. I'd interpret it as only requiring one objection, myself. But "without objections" would be short for "without any objections", logically equivalent to "with 0 objections", but different from "without 0 objections". So it wouldn't be a matter of N defaulting to 0. Indeed, "any" effectively means "1 or more", and the "or more" is implied, so we're left with "without 1 objection". In any case, "without objection" is actually a stock phrase from parliamentary procedure. "Without objections" is also used sometimes, but not as often: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=without+objection%2Cwithout+objections_insensitive=on_start=1500_end=2008=15=3=_url=t4%3B%2Cwithout%20objection%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bwithout%20objection%3B%2Cc0%3B%3Bwithout%20Objection%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BWithout%20objection%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cwithout%20objections%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bwithout%20objections%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BWithout%20objections%3B%2Cc0
Re: DIS: Numbers and dependent actions
Falsifian wrote: "Without objection" and "without objections" both sound okay to me. I prefer the first, but I don't know why. Maybe I'm just used to it. The second makes it sound like there need to be objection/s/, plural, to block the relevant action.
Re: DIS: Numbers and dependent actions
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 12:45 PM sukil via agora-discussion wrote: > > > El 14/02/2020 a las 18:06, James Cook escribió: > > On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 13:06, sukil via agora-discussion > > wrote: > >> El 13/02/2020 a las 13:24, AIS523--- via agora-discussion escribió: > >>> On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 12:40 +0100, sukil via agora-discussion wrote: > Hi, > > I was reading the rules before registering and came across something > I didn't understand, I hope you guys can clarify this for me (I was > going to propose some change for the first part, but then I might be > the only one who doesn't understand this). > > First, we have objections, consent and support defined in terms of a > switch (called n), and the negation of them (without objection, > consent or support) is expressed as n=1. Why is this so? Wouldn't it > be way more intuitive that this was defined as n=0? Is it because in > the ruleset the natural numbers are defined (not explicitly if so, I > must add) as >0 rather than >=0? Also, what happens when n=2 in these > cases? > >>> It's basically because it's trying to define the most useful case as > >>> shorthand. Without 1 Objection is very common: it means that everyone > >>> has to agree (or at least, nobody can actively disagree) for something > >>> to happen, so it's used to handle uncontroversial situations where > >>> everyone is unanimous. Without 0 Objections would not be a usable > >>> mechanism, because there's always at least 0 objections. > >> > >> Maybe it's because I'm a non-native English speaker (specifically: I'm > >> from Spain), and "without objections" rings more natural to me and > >> conveys the same meaning (though now I doubt if that's the case). So we > >> could rephrase "without objection" to "without objections". A > >> structurally simpler "fix" would be to add "without n objections (and > >> its shorthand) is equivalent to with less than n objections". > > "Without objection" and "without objections" both sound okay to me. I > > prefer the first, but I don't know why. Maybe I'm just used to it. > > > > Sorry about the "unless" in Rule 2124, which I guess is contributing > > one of the negatives. I think I'm responsible for that phrasing. It > > just seemed like the easiest way to phrase it, given that it has to > > appear in a list with other conditions. > > > > - Falsifian > > > It kind of is, but I can understand the reasoning behind that. By the > way, could I have submitted a CFJ with this same question? I kind of > don't see where the limit is between discussion and business. It > probably doesn't help that I'm reading both the rules and gameplay at > the same time :) . CFJs tend to get used for questions that are potentially controversial. There's a bit more overhead involved with them, and so it's sometimes mildly annoying if there are a bunch of CFJs that have obvious answers. On the other hand, if something is seriously ambiguous or there are competing alternate interpretations, a CFJ provides an answer that everyone will respect so we're all on the same page. As a new player, if you have a question about the rules, it's usually better to ask in the discussion forum first. Often there's a clear answer in a rule or precedent that you didn't know about. People may think that it's worth a CFJ and either advise you to call one or call one themselves. Over time, you'll get more experienced with the rules, to the point where you can tell what sorts of things are legally ambiguous and in need of interpretation. Even experienced players call CFJs that turn out to have trivial answers, but there are a lot fewer of them. Note that, once you get moderately familiar with the rules, volunteering to judge CFJs is actually a great way to learn more; the Arbitor will likely tailor the ones you get at first so that they're simple and/or have relatively clear arguments on both sides. As for reading rules and gameplay at the same time, that's totally an okay way to do it! Lots of people find that easier than trying to remember all of the rules out of context. Personally, I tried to get familiar with the FLR before playing, but that doesn't work for everyone (actually, from what I've heard most people are better off doing what you're doing). -Aris
Re: DIS: Numbers and dependent actions
El 14/02/2020 a las 18:06, James Cook escribió: On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 13:06, sukil via agora-discussion wrote: El 13/02/2020 a las 13:24, AIS523--- via agora-discussion escribió: On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 12:40 +0100, sukil via agora-discussion wrote: Hi, I was reading the rules before registering and came across something I didn't understand, I hope you guys can clarify this for me (I was going to propose some change for the first part, but then I might be the only one who doesn't understand this). First, we have objections, consent and support defined in terms of a switch (called n), and the negation of them (without objection, consent or support) is expressed as n=1. Why is this so? Wouldn't it be way more intuitive that this was defined as n=0? Is it because in the ruleset the natural numbers are defined (not explicitly if so, I must add) as >0 rather than >=0? Also, what happens when n=2 in these cases? It's basically because it's trying to define the most useful case as shorthand. Without 1 Objection is very common: it means that everyone has to agree (or at least, nobody can actively disagree) for something to happen, so it's used to handle uncontroversial situations where everyone is unanimous. Without 0 Objections would not be a usable mechanism, because there's always at least 0 objections. Maybe it's because I'm a non-native English speaker (specifically: I'm from Spain), and "without objections" rings more natural to me and conveys the same meaning (though now I doubt if that's the case). So we could rephrase "without objection" to "without objections". A structurally simpler "fix" would be to add "without n objections (and its shorthand) is equivalent to with less than n objections". "Without objection" and "without objections" both sound okay to me. I prefer the first, but I don't know why. Maybe I'm just used to it. Sorry about the "unless" in Rule 2124, which I guess is contributing one of the negatives. I think I'm responsible for that phrasing. It just seemed like the easiest way to phrase it, given that it has to appear in a list with other conditions. - Falsifian It kind of is, but I can understand the reasoning behind that. By the way, could I have submitted a CFJ with this same question? I kind of don't see where the limit is between discussion and business. It probably doesn't help that I'm reading both the rules and gameplay at the same time :) .
Re: DIS: Numbers and dependent actions
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 13:06, sukil via agora-discussion wrote: > El 13/02/2020 a las 13:24, AIS523--- via agora-discussion escribió: > > On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 12:40 +0100, sukil via agora-discussion wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I was reading the rules before registering and came across something > >> I didn't understand, I hope you guys can clarify this for me (I was > >> going to propose some change for the first part, but then I might be > >> the only one who doesn't understand this). > >> > >> First, we have objections, consent and support defined in terms of a > >> switch (called n), and the negation of them (without objection, > >> consent or support) is expressed as n=1. Why is this so? Wouldn't it > >> be way more intuitive that this was defined as n=0? Is it because in > >> the ruleset the natural numbers are defined (not explicitly if so, I > >> must add) as >0 rather than >=0? Also, what happens when n=2 in these > >> cases? > > It's basically because it's trying to define the most useful case as > > shorthand. Without 1 Objection is very common: it means that everyone > > has to agree (or at least, nobody can actively disagree) for something > > to happen, so it's used to handle uncontroversial situations where > > everyone is unanimous. Without 0 Objections would not be a usable > > mechanism, because there's always at least 0 objections. > > > Maybe it's because I'm a non-native English speaker (specifically: I'm > from Spain), and "without objections" rings more natural to me and > conveys the same meaning (though now I doubt if that's the case). So we > could rephrase "without objection" to "without objections". A > structurally simpler "fix" would be to add "without n objections (and > its shorthand) is equivalent to with less than n objections". "Without objection" and "without objections" both sound okay to me. I prefer the first, but I don't know why. Maybe I'm just used to it. Sorry about the "unless" in Rule 2124, which I guess is contributing one of the negatives. I think I'm responsible for that phrasing. It just seemed like the easiest way to phrase it, given that it has to appear in a list with other conditions. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Numbers and dependent actions
El 13/02/2020 a las 13:24, AIS523--- via agora-discussion escribió: On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 12:40 +0100, sukil via agora-discussion wrote: Hi, I was reading the rules before registering and came across something I didn't understand, I hope you guys can clarify this for me (I was going to propose some change for the first part, but then I might be the only one who doesn't understand this). First, we have objections, consent and support defined in terms of a switch (called n), and the negation of them (without objection, consent or support) is expressed as n=1. Why is this so? Wouldn't it be way more intuitive that this was defined as n=0? Is it because in the ruleset the natural numbers are defined (not explicitly if so, I must add) as >0 rather than >=0? Also, what happens when n=2 in these cases? It's basically because it's trying to define the most useful case as shorthand. Without 1 Objection is very common: it means that everyone has to agree (or at least, nobody can actively disagree) for something to happen, so it's used to handle uncontroversial situations where everyone is unanimous. Without 0 Objections would not be a usable mechanism, because there's always at least 0 objections. Maybe it's because I'm a non-native English speaker (specifically: I'm from Spain), and "without objections" rings more natural to me and conveys the same meaning (though now I doubt if that's the case). So we could rephrase "without objection" to "without objections". A structurally simpler "fix" would be to add "without n objections (and its shorthand) is equivalent to with less than n objections". As I said I'm raising this in discussion as I don't know if you think this deserves a change or not (maybe I'm the only one who trips with these things). Thanks and sorry for sending several mails in a row, will try to clarify my thoughts before hitting "send".
Re: DIS: Numbers and dependent actions
Ah, I see now, double negatives (approximate term) confuse me. Thanks! El 13/02/2020 a las 13:24, AIS523--- via agora-discussion escribió: On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 12:40 +0100, sukil via agora-discussion wrote: Hi, I was reading the rules before registering and came across something I didn't understand, I hope you guys can clarify this for me (I was going to propose some change for the first part, but then I might be the only one who doesn't understand this). First, we have objections, consent and support defined in terms of a switch (called n), and the negation of them (without objection, consent or support) is expressed as n=1. Why is this so? Wouldn't it be way more intuitive that this was defined as n=0? Is it because in the ruleset the natural numbers are defined (not explicitly if so, I must add) as >0 rather than >=0? Also, what happens when n=2 in these cases? It's basically because it's trying to define the most useful case as shorthand. Without 1 Objection is very common: it means that everyone has to agree (or at least, nobody can actively disagree) for something to happen, so it's used to handle uncontroversial situations where everyone is unanimous. Without 0 Objections would not be a usable mechanism, because there's always at least 0 objections. And lastly, are all actions "without objections" bound to have no objections before taking them? (See cleanliness, for example). For a "without 1 objection" action (typically abbreviated to "without objection"), if anyone objected to the intent, then the action could not be performed. For an action with an easier requirement, such as "without 3 objections", there could be up to 2 objections to an intent without making the action impossible to perform.
Re: DIS: Numbers and dependent actions
On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 12:40 +0100, sukil via agora-discussion wrote: > Hi, > > I was reading the rules before registering and came across something > I didn't understand, I hope you guys can clarify this for me (I was > going to propose some change for the first part, but then I might be > the only one who doesn't understand this). > > First, we have objections, consent and support defined in terms of a > switch (called n), and the negation of them (without objection, > consent or support) is expressed as n=1. Why is this so? Wouldn't it > be way more intuitive that this was defined as n=0? Is it because in > the ruleset the natural numbers are defined (not explicitly if so, I > must add) as >0 rather than >=0? Also, what happens when n=2 in these > cases? It's basically because it's trying to define the most useful case as shorthand. Without 1 Objection is very common: it means that everyone has to agree (or at least, nobody can actively disagree) for something to happen, so it's used to handle uncontroversial situations where everyone is unanimous. Without 0 Objections would not be a usable mechanism, because there's always at least 0 objections. > And lastly, are all actions "without objections" bound to have no > objections before taking them? (See cleanliness, for example). For a "without 1 objection" action (typically abbreviated to "without objection"), if anyone objected to the intent, then the action could not be performed. For an action with an easier requirement, such as "without 3 objections", there could be up to 2 objections to an intent without making the action impossible to perform. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Numbers and dependent actions
Re-reading the rules it seems that my first point only applies to the objections part, the rest is clear.
DIS: Numbers and dependent actions
Hi, I was reading the rules before registering and came across something I didn't understand, I hope you guys can clarify this for me (I was going to propose some change for the first part, but then I might be the only one who doesn't understand this). First, we have objections, consent and support defined in terms of a switch (called n), and the negation of them (without objection, consent or support) is expressed as n=1. Why is this so? Wouldn't it be way more intuitive that this was defined as n=0? Is it because in the ruleset the natural numbers are defined (not explicitly if so, I must add) as >0 rather than >=0? Also, what happens when n=2 in these cases? And lastly, are all actions "without objections" bound to have no objections before taking them? (See cleanliness, for example).
